Christine Smith's Blog

Two recommended articles for Memorial Day weekend

The Price of Freedom?
by Christine Smith at The Future of Freedom Foundation website

Dying for a Lie
by Laurence M. Vance at LewRockwell.com

What Rand Paul Supports – Thus, Why I Reject Him

With the recent primary win of Rand Paul exciting many libertarians, I recently wrote a blog piece entitled “Stupid libertarian hoopla over Rand Paul.”

Since then, I’ve found some libertarians to be ignorant of just how bad (from my libertarian perspective) Rand Paul’s political positions are. I view Rand Paul as a conservative, thus am amazed at the degree of libertarian support he receives.

Thus, I will share some of the most egregious examples of where I, as a libertarian, completely disagree with him.
Based upon his remarks/writings/website (see link at bottom of this blog),

Rand Paul:

1. Supports maintaining federal involvement (drug laws) on marijuana saying he “does not support eliminating all federal laws or penalties on marijuana…”)

2. Thinks a Congressional vote for a Declaration of War with Afghanistan should have been called for (saying he “would have demanded” such a vote and would have “voted for it.”)

3. Supports a moratorium on travel visas with what he calls “terrorist” nations “from about ten rogue nations or anybody that has traveled to those nations.”

4. Supports military tribunals for Guantanamo detainees (rather than charging them with a federal crime as the U.S. Code would have)

5. Supports the “securing” of borders including electric fence, helicopter stations, and construction of military bases to “protect” border.

6. Supports federal legislation which would end abortion and says on his website that he “will always vote for any and all legislation that would end abortion or lead us in the direction of ending abortion…” (note from C.Smith: it shouldn’t be a federal issue in my opinion)

7. Thinks “Foreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution,” and refers to detainees as “thugs”

In my opinion, such positions are as detached from libertarianism as they come on very important issues. At a time when libertarian ideas are becoming discussed more in the mainstream, the last thing we need is to become identified with another right wing conservative with stances so anti-freedom. The positions above I consider to be antithetic to limited government and respect for individual liberty.

To those libertarians who like to vote for a candidate who they say at least may be better on some issues and who “hope” maybe something good will come from it, I share what I have always said: I view the voter and supporter of a candidate as culpable for whatever an elected politician does, that is if there was ample evidence of who that person was and what they stood for, before the vote was cast.

Participation in the electoral process can be a part of achieving greater liberty in this nation, and voting important. But if an office has no candidate running who truly values liberty consistently, I see no value (only harm) in casting a vote for such a person. For all offices, in which I see no candidate whom I can, in good conscience, vote for, I cast no vote. Choosing not to vote in such common situations, in itself, can require more thought and integrity, than blindly (or contemptuously and reluctantly) casting a vote for any candidate who to a significant degree does not reflect your principles and values.

When I look at the field of candidates for an office, I I view it as a litmus test to a large degree. On the issues I consider to be most important a candidate must share my positions. Sure, it would be rare (but not impossible) for a candidate for any office to be someone I agree with wholeheartedly (I say it’s possible, because I can imagine such candidates based upon the fact there are libertarian writers, whose work has been consistent for many years; if such consistent individuals exists, it is feasible that such a candidate could present themselves- though that would be rare).

But, usually, there will be disagreement between any given voter and any given candidate – that doesn’t rule out my casting a vote for them. But on key issues – it does – the more of such issues of disagreement means I wouldn’t vote for them.I don’t care whether it’s a choice between voting between the lesser of two evils or the lesser of five, I will not cast a vote for any candidate who I believe doesn’t have a core dedication to liberty.

Political ideology lies upon a continuum, of course. I support only those who are predominantly liberty-based – not just apparently getting it saying it right on a few issues (as Rand Paul does on some economic issues).

Citing a few words or platitudes a libertarian would agree with doesn’t make someone worthy of my support (and even those apparent positions and rhetoric I wouldn’t trust any candidate to follow through on if do not believe them to be grounded in a dedication to and respect of freedom).

I am a libertarian not a conservative, so I will never support someone who is just another conservative using a few of our phrases to muster support. This is why I do not support Rand Paul, and is why I view libertarians who do as either gullible fools or simply people professing libertarianism with a shallow understanding of its core principles who are willing to compromise whatever it is they otherwise claim to believe in just to be a part of the herd.

I invite you to read my blog piece “Stupid libertarian hoopla over Rand Paul”.

(Visit Rand Paul’s website to learn in his own words what he stands for:
http://www.randpaul2010.com/2010/02/rand-responds-to-attacks/
and from above link, access his issues page for more on his abortion stance, “illegal immigration,” and “national defense.”)

Stupid libertarian hoopla over Rand Paul

Why are some libertarians so happy about Rand Paul’s primary win? 

Seems a lot of compromise is going on in order to feel good about themselves if this is what they get excited about.  Some libertarians remind me of Obamaheads – they don’t care about reality, they just want to live in illusion land.

Talk about desperation – so desperate to have something –anything– to proclaim as a “victory,” regardless of how much the person doesn’t reflect fundamental values of libertarianism, they herald his primary win like it means something of significance for them.  For him to have achieved it is a political victory – but not, I think, for any of the fundamental participles true libertarians believe. But having that last name seems is all it took for some libertarians to jump on his bandwagon. How shallow.

Sure doesn’t take much for some libertarians to fork over their support, which leads me to suspect their professed libertarianism isn’t very deep at all.  Compromise on important issues seems common among so many, and the herd mentality is something I see more and more of amongst those professing to be libertarians. They “pride” themselves on their individuality, being most vocal about it, yet they are so easily herded into stupid hoopla over someone who is, in my opinion, no friend of fundamental libertarian principle domestically or internationally.  Again, such desperation to have something or someone to celebrate, and such ecstaticism as they join together over nothing, reflects poorly on their rationality and objectivity.

Does the obvious need to be stated?  I guess it does.  Just because a perceived non establishment candidate defeats one of the establishment doesn’t mean it’s a win for libertarianism.  Oh, but I can hear libertarians who like him defending themselves now perhaps using phrases like “We can hope…” Oh, have we heard that one before somewhere?

I don’t care about a person’s political affiliation, I care about what they stand for.  In my opinion, Rand Paul stands for more of the same.

Giving them the benefit of doubt, I find this utter gullibility in some libertarians to be pathetic.  It’s hard not to think of those who are celebrating this as some sort of libertarian victory as just plain fools…just like all those peace activists who were so happy with Obama’s election.  Look at yourselves, what’s there to really celebrate of true significance in a Rand Paul victory?  Nothing in my book. 

Photos-May 16, 2010, deer amongst daffodils at my home

May 16, 2010. Deer at my home walking amongst daffodils.

PEACE

I deeply appreciate this quote from St. Austin. It makes me all the more seek development love of all and God and what that entails in humility, giving, and zeal for being apart of furthering what is right and true. It is the peace I want to maintain and develop no matter the circumstances in life. When it is not present, I become aware it is because I have mistakenly strayed from trust and faith and thus loving actions.

“Peace is the serenity of the soul, the tranquillity of the mind, the simplicity of the heart, the bond of love, and the union of charity.” – St. Austin (from The Manual of The Holy Catholic Church – Embracing Light from the Altar, James J. McGovern, D.D. (Copr. 1906 by James J. McGovern, Copr. 1920 by Joseph R. Gay)

Photo – May 10, 2010

May 10, 2010.

Photos: Daffodils blooming, springtime in the mountains

What I just saw and felt walking outside…daffodils,standing beautiful, strong despite snow twice and wind gusts of 40mph in the past few days…snow on mountains on a cool cloudy May afternoon…invigorating breeze carries the scent of the daffodils my way.

Immigration Socialism versus Freedom and the Free Market – by Jacob G. Hornberger

This article says it all.  I highly recommend it! 

Immigration Socialism versus Freedom and the Free Market

by Jacob G. Hornberger

Film Recommendation “Five Minutes of Heaven,” and Thoughts on Righteous Indignation vs. Anger

Last night I viewed the film “Five Minutes of Heaven,” a powerful story of mistakes, immaturity and maturation, anger, vengeance, and forgiveness. Developed from the true event of the 1975 killing of Jim Griffin by Alistair Little in Northern Ireland, the story revolves around the fictionalized what-if of the killer meeting the witness (the brother of the deceased who was 11 at the time of the shooting) 33 years later.

The sadness and tragedy of the violent unrest between Catholic and Protestant in Northern Ireland is communicated well through this  incident, with its years of affect between those involved becoming the fictional continuation.

I found this well-made film and the fictional story which evolved from that tragedy to be thought provoking and engaging. I recommend it. Liam Neeson and James Nesbitt do a fine job.

The film illustrated well the peril and misery of accepting anger as justified, which in my opinion, always leads to more misery, harm, and sadness.

Again, I highly recommend the film “Five Minutes of heaven,” – it is a most interesting story and character study.  (Link to its Amazon page)

On a personal note, I distinguish between righteous indignation (and thus a devotion and commitment to justice or as close to justice as is humanly possible, which at times may never occur in certain human situations) and anger (which is allowing oneself to be controlled by emotionalism). I believe anger is never justified, as it is a feeling from the emotion of fear and leads to serious mistakes of conduct and behavior which though may seem justified at the time, can later in more rational and ethical examination, be seen for the mistake it was. Righteous indignation, on the other hand, is that intense call to action to stop an evil and to in whatever capacity we have to bring light into an area of darkness, to alleviate suffering, to expose what is wrong or corrupt, and to put a stop to it. It does not entail resorting to evil to fight evil because it is based in the strength of love.

Fear brings anger, hatred, and attack and rationalization of attack; love brings a strength to realize that revenge is never the answer regardless of the provocation. In fact, I believe those motivated and inspired from a spiritual basis of love are far more effective at achieving whatever justice is humanly possible than those who succumb to the baser feelings.

Allowing anger within leads us to the wild uncontrolled imaginations of our mind, but allowing love to make our decisions leads us to see what justice (if any) can be found without becoming that which we say we reject. Therein lies the difference between self-defense, for example, and offensive violence…or between stopping a person from harming another again and revenge which seeks to punish rather than halt more evil behavior. Evil does not justify evil.

Neither does relinquishing anger mean one must try to reconcile with the one who has wronged another, it simply means one does not seek to exact punishment, but when needed seeks only to prevent oneself or another from being harmed by the other again.

Resolution within and its inner peace is obtained when one relinquishes the feeling of revenge, which brings me to recommend a previous article I wrote addressing that common question of whether the end ever justifies the means?

In the many issues facing society, a common rationalization for committing wrong, immoral, unjust or unethical acts is that if the greater good is served the relative harm necessary to gain such a supposed good is justified. In essence, people say doing bad can result in good, thus they assert bad becomes good. This has become commonly accepted in politics (as well as within people’s personal and business lives).

Consider issues such as immigration, taxation, abortion, capital punishment, torture, and the use of military force. All present a multitude of possible scenarios and situations in which the use of force is argued or disputed. Must we, then, live our lives in a state of flux, constantly having to analyze each and every situation to determine what is ethical? Are there times when commission of a wrong act is the best choice because the result may be better for the majority? Is morality relative? Can an immoral or unethical act sometimes be the right thing to do if the outcome is deemed favorable?

I believe the final result of an action cannot and must not be the determiner of right or wrong, and I explore this point in my previous blog article “The End Does Not Justify The Means” which I invite you to read. 

My path to libertarianism – Interview

I was interviewed on the “Declare Your Independence with Ernest Hancock”morning show April 30, 2010. Jet Lacey (who fills in for Hancock on Friday) conducted an excellent interview with me – I enjoyed it. We discussed libertarianism and the path my life took to it. (One hour audio.)

You may listen
HERE.